The underlying assumption is of course that a proficiency test would result in more efficient kills and therefore less suffering. I don't think that would be the case at all. Cripling losses are imo the result of hunters taking low percentage or what you might say are unethical shots.Everyoneregardless of their prowesshas a maximum effective range. Everyone is also quite susceptable to yielding to the temptation of taking shots where the kill zone is not properly exposed as opposed to not getting a shot at all. With a little thought I'm sure ou can come up with other situations where even an outstanding shot winds up wounding an animal because his ethics allow him to push the envelope well behond his ability.He'sjust hoping to get lucky and when he's not the animal pays the price. No way to test for this. I think though well intentioned proficiency testing would merely add bureacracy with no benefit.